April 29, 2009

25 comments:

"They're not even [within] 100 miles [of Baghdad]. They are not in any place. They hold no place in Iraq. This is an illusion ... they are trying to sell to the others an illusion."

"We defeated them yesterday. God willing, I will provide you with more information. I swear by God, I swear by God, those who are staying in Washington and London have thrown these mercenaries in a crematorium."

This is exactly what I told a liberal, college prof friend of mine. If the Dems control, they have no excuses when either their agenda fails or, more likely, its successful implementation leads to major problems. Plus, Al Franken will be a PR godsend for the Repubs. My friend hadn't thought about their victory in quite those terms, lol.

"This is exactly what I told a liberal, college prof friend of mine. If the Dems control, they have no excuses when either their agenda fails or, more likely, its successful implementation leads to major problems."

Democrats always have excuses.

And didn't Kristol vote for Obama? Why should anyone care what advice he has to offer?

FDR implemented Social Security which, with the baby boomers, is now starting to cannibalize the entire federal budget and will ultimate fail without unsustainable tax hikes or (more likely) massive inflation.

LBJ gave us the great society and now, 40 years later, the red-brick inner-city projects are all torn down, as is the family structure of the poor, mostly black.

Now OHB will give us everything else. And the corrosive hand of the US government will begin it lunching.

And future generations will take away all of BHO’s entitlements and promised benefits when they find themselves unable to pay for both BHO’s debt from our day and their own present needs.

Roll-backs and inflation will be the only solutions to recover from BHO’s greatness.

In the real world it works that way. One my old employers at one time purchased a block of insurance policies (life and annuities) from another company. That type of transaction is called an 'assumption agreement' in which the purchaser assumes the assets and liabilities of the block of business. The purchaser is also assuming any problems that go with them. Telling a state regulator or angry customer that it isn't my fault but the previous company's fault didn't go very far.

Obama spent close to a billion Benjamins to get to sit in the big boy chair so yeah, he's responsible.

If this president isn't afraid of responsibility, it must be because he isn't smart enough to know, or honest enough to admit, what damage he's causing to the US economy and what he’ll be responsible for.

There is no possible argument on the point. Numbers don't lie or spin like Washington politicians.

We are going to have to inflate our way out of his spending (and tip our hats to the Chinese for being such huge suckers) and) the future generation will roll back his programs.

They simply won't be able to pay for the benefits we got in these years and meet their own needs also.

I don't think Al Franken will be much of PR Godsend for Republicans. Expectations for him are very low, and even someone with experience in the Entertainment Biz will have a devil of a time wrestling the microphone from Chuck Schumer.

Whether or not this is bad news for Democrats depends, I suppose, on what Republicans do. It's not like they can claim to be fiscally prudent, given what the past administration did. What do they offer that is markedly different? That's what they have to put to the forefront, and all I've seen so far is saying they don't want Obama's policies.

It's not like they can claim to be fiscally prudent, given what the past administration did. What do they offer that is markedly different?

They at least have legitimate grounds to argue they're far less fiscally imprudent. Anyways, it doesn't matter what they do or don't offer. The administration and their media lackeys will simply lie about it anyways.

I don't follow your logic MM. Clinton was more fiscally prudent than Bush, therefore Obama gets a pass for being more fiscally profligate than both of them combined?

You're probably right though. Just call all the spending "investments" and promise everyone that their check is in the mail. No criticism can be valid if Bush was the president. Tomorrow's always a day away.

I'm saying that if some future Republican claims that Obama's spending is out of control, and says look how relative un-awful spending was under GW Bush, any smart Democrat (a smallish group, admittedly) running against him is gonna bring up the Clinton example and say the Republicans have no special claim on fiscal prudence.

I don't think it matters to the Average Voter that Democrats didn't control the Congress then, and therefore weren't in full control like they will be shortly.

any smart Democrat (a smallish group, admittedly) running against him is gonna bring up the Clinton example and say the Republicans have no special claim on fiscal prudence..

Well if that smart Democrat was honest he'd also remind that person that the Congress controls the pursestrings and it was controlled by Republicans at the time.

But I will agree that the GOP has lost it's moral authority when it comes to fiscal responsibility, which is probably why they're reeling from electoral losses. Which is why the whole slate needs to be cleaned of them and a new breed come in that will worry less about gays getting hitched and more about restoring the solvency of the country.

I'll take it a step further, Obama is now looking at a filibuster proof Senate and the ability to work his will without GOP interference. To quote Mr. Wolfe from Pulp Fiction, 'lets not start sucking each other's dicks yet gentlemen.' Bush was able to work his will much the same way and look what happened to him. If Obama thinks that Bush fatigue means he can spend us into oblivian he's going to be in for a nasty surprise.

Which is why the whole slate needs to be cleaned of them and a new breed come in that will worry less about gays getting hitched and more about restoring the solvency of the country.I wouldn't assume that liberal social values are going to be the big winners in future elections. Look at the California amendment banning gay marriage...it was passed because most blacks and hispanics oppose homosexual equality. And the black and hispanic part of the population is the part that's growing and giving the liberals political power. This may be the high-water mark of homosexual acceptance right now. It's just like the Left in Holland is finding out with regard to muslim immigration - it's great at first for boosting your side's voting power, but once muslims actually start taking power it's very, very bad for liberal ideas (other than using the government to loot the productive).

Which is why the whole slate needs to be cleaned of them and a new breed come in that will worry less about gays getting hitched and more about restoring the solvency of the country.

That won't happen, though. The Democrats have total ability to abuse of census manipulation, engage in jerrymandering, and shake down the vast swaths of the economy they now hold power over for a near-unlimited amount of campaign funding. Add in the willingness of the lackey news media to personally destroy the credibility of and ridicule to oblivion any potential leaders of such a party and from a purely practical point of view it seems improbable that any serious challengers will emerge until the party destroys itself.